When I wrote my post Victory or Defeat I was expecting that there would be some strong disagreement with a few of the arguments that I made. In particular I was expecting opposition to this statement of mine:
The “Women Against Feminism” are, despite thinking otherwise, still actually feminists. They just don’t realize it. They are rebelling against the more visible and extreme “strains” of feminism right now, but fail to realize that they are still believers in the older, less virulent strains.
However, there was far less disagreement than I expected. Commenter Denise went the furthest with this comment, but even that was more of a round about attack on some assumptions I was (apparently) making. I suspect the lack of disagreement is because my blog is a low-traffic one that collects relatively few trolls or individuals opposed to my views.
But enough of that. I wanted to expect on a relatively short but important comment left by Lovelyleblanc7, who is clearly wiser than her years would suggest. Here is what she said in response to a comment of mine:
WAF, MRAs, and feminists are all the same. They shoot themselves in the foot. These days, MRAs are starting to become worse than feminists, which is saying a lot.
The part in bold is what it important to understand. More than important, vital, to understand what is going on and why our culture is in its present condition. LLB7 has correctly diagnosed that (radical) feminists, WAF and MRAs are all essentially the same, although they may not realize it. They are just different flavors of the same thing. You see, they are all proponents of the same societal outcome, despite being, on paper, vehemently opposed to one other.
MRAs and WAFs are Egalitarians- they argue for equal treatment of men and women by society.
Radical feminists (as opposed to the more mundane types) are Female Supremacists- they argue for superior treatment of women by society (although they sometimes try and disguise that fact).
Totally different, right? Wrong. Here is the catch: Egalitarianism inevitably leads towards the outcome of Female Supremacy. Egalitarian philosophy, when applied to society and culture, creates conditions that will naturally push society towards the outcomes and views espoused by radical feminists.
Egalitarians argue for a society where everything is balanced. Where men and women have equal power and rights. In their minds a society organized this way is the fairest, most stable and the most likely to succeed. WAFs and MRAs oppose radical feminism because they see it as unbalanced, and unfair to men. They oppose patriarchy because they see it as unbalanced, and unfair to women. It is their earnest belief that an Egalitarian society is one that is best for everyone. Here is what a graphical representation of it might look like:
The equality point is balanced, and hence, optimal. Power is distributed in society equally between men and women. Society is stable and everyone benefits. Feminism and Patriarchy, on the other hand, are unbalanced. When a society reaches those states it quickly slides into oppression of one sex or the other. Hence the need for the balance point of Egalitarianism- it keeps that oppression from happening.
This is a nice, neat picture. Everything has a place, and it shows that Egalitarians are smart, reasonable people with the best interests of everyone in mind. Too bad this picture is misleading. And not just misleading, but flat out wrong.
It is wrong because the balance point, the optimal distribution of power between men and women is not at the center point, the point of equality. Rather, the balance point is off to the right, towards the male side of power distribution. Here is a graphical representation of how civilizational stability really works:
This graphic demonstrates why Egalitarianism will ultimately, and always, lead towards the radical feminist position. You see, at the point of equality society the slope of social progression is already turned downwards. A society that reaches this point is already on the slide towards the oppression of men and social instability. Egalitarianism is just a stop on the path towards radical feminism and the oppression of men.
Why is the balance point towards the right side of the equation? The Feminine Imperative, of course. For those not quite sure what that is, here is my attempt to define it:
A biological impulse within all human beings which causes us to favor female interests over male interests within the overall social group.
The FI is not all powerful. Social condition, aka Culture, can override it to some degree. Individual men can be especially selfish and oppose efforts to divert resources towards women. But even when there are forces acting to suppress it, the FI yet remains, always pushing, always asserting itself. Unless active efforts are put in place to restrain it, it will insert itself into all aspects of human endeavors.
Now, the Feminine Imperative is not an evil thing. It has served a valuable biological purpose in the early stages of human history, by ensuring that resources and protection were afforded to women to the degree necessary to ensure the survival of the species. But outside that context of day-to-day survival, the Feminine Imperative is dangerous, as it unbalances the overall equation. Favoring female interests over male interests on a massive, organized scale, which is what civilization is all about, means that you will get a system where men are marginalized and ultimately oppressed. Kind of like the present system.
Only by having the overall distribution of power favor men can you ensure that the Feminine Imperative be sufficiently restrained that it won’t lead civilization into oblivion. A number of bloggers have addressed this before. Here is one piece by Free Northerner. What he, and many others, refer to as patriarchy is merely a balanced equation- a system where the distribution of power favors men so that the FI is restrained, yet women are protected from abuse and oppression at the hands of men.
The WAF don’t realize this. They think that they are being fair, reasonable and just women. Sadly, they don’t realize that their push for “equality” is a well-intentioned but misguided effort to keep in place a system which will, if not checked, bring about the very things they claim to be against. Those who oppose “setting back the clock” because they don’t want to give up what they’ve gained from feminism and Egalitarianism don’t appreciate that they cannot keep those powers and yet have a harmonious society. Culture and societies are dynamic, not static. They are ever moving. Either they give up those rights, privileges and powers and restore balance, or they accept that our culture and society will continue to slide towards a despotism of the petticoat.
For those of my readers who are Christians, you should be able to make the connection between this graphic and [accurate, proper] Christian teaching and doctrine. Various powers granted to men but not to women aim to stifle the worst of the Feminine Imperative, as well as other negative aspects of female behavior. Various protections and guarantees granted to women mean to protect them from the worst aspects of male behavior.
Oh, and for those women (or even men) who don’t care if men suffer as a result of women’s new-found power… understand that the new gravy train is of a limited duration. Once a civilization veers too far from the balance point and ends up in oppressive territory, it starts to collapse. The Balance point is also the point of the greatest stability for a civilization. The further away you get from it, the less stable a civilization becomes. Where does it all lead? Just ask Thomas Hobbes:
In such condition, there is no place for Industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain; and consequently no Culture of the Earth; no Navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by Sea; no commodious Building; no Instruments of moving, and removing such things as require much force; no Knowledge of the face of the Earth; no account of Time; no Arts; no Letters; no Society; and which is worst of all, continuall feare, and danger of violent death; And the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short.”
[I lost some of what I wrote on this post. I’ve recovered what I can for now, but I know I’m still missing a few things. I’m uploading this post as is, but expect it to be altered and updated when/if I remember what was lost.]
Donal Graeme 
I think your graph is missing something, because what you are describing is structural power, versus innate or biological power. The balance point is when men have and amount of structural power that is equal to the biological power when inherently have.
Women have a relative higher biological power at the individual level versus men (men are the more dispensable sex). An individual woman has more social or biological power than an individual man.
Patriarchy is more stable and is a balance point because the structural power given to men balances the biological power women have, that’s why its stable.
Egalitarian isn’t balanced, because what women are doing is taking their biological power (and privileges) and wanting half of the structural (male) power and privileges as well, so in an egalitarian model women have 75% of the power and men have 25%.
And you see that play out in all sorts of ways.
There are female spheres of power: family, children, sex. and they maintain control over most of that power.
And then they want to split the male power: politics, labor, status.
So egalitarianism really isn’t, because it isn’t an equal sharing of things all the way around.
There is no possible way to have equality by giving women a share of male power, because the moment you do that women are immediately more powerful in society than the men.
The Feminine Imperative…For those not quite sure what that is, here is my attempt to define it:
A biological impulse within all human beings which causes us to favor female interests over male interests within the overall social group.
…Now, the Feminine Imperative is not an evil thing. It has served a valuable biological purpose in the early stages of human history, by ensuring that resources and protection were afforded to women to the degree necessary to ensure the survival of the species. But outside that context of day-to-day survival, the Feminine Imperative is dangerous
I’m thinking there needs to be separate terms for the FI – the force – and what happens when that force is permitted to act unrestrained and unfettered – the slipping of the leash. To give an oversimplified analogy, magma and lava are released through a volcano’s eruption and cause a lot of damage, but they are not the eruption itself.
Since it seems to result in runaway radical feminism, my suggestion is Feminism Unleashed. But I’m open to other ideas.
There’s a fundamental difference: MRAs make correct observations, feminists don’t. MRAs have legitimate complaints, feminists never had any. The aim, simply speaking, is to make sure men don’t become victims for any reason. What happens with this civilization is of secondary importance. It has already abandoned men, and therefore no man has any obligation to fight for it.
There are female spheres of power: family, children, sex. and they maintain control over most of that power.
And then they want to split the male power: politics, labor, status.
So egalitarianism really isn’t, because it isn’t an equal sharing of things all the way around.
There is no possible way to have equality by giving women a share of male power, because the moment you do that women are immediately more powerful in society than the men.
Precisely.
The current “view” on this is that the only power that matters is structural power, and so analyzing other forms of power between the sexes (sexual power, social power) is off point, because from this limited and reductionist perspective, only structural power “really matters”. If you buy that, then you want to make structural power more equal, and this is what was done.
I think when viewed in this way, we can understand that the architects of this were misguided rather than malicious for the most part. There were malicious people, too, but by and large this restructuring gained mass support because most thought it was fair, and they thought that way because they were prioritizing structural power to the exclusion of all else in viewing these things. That is, the other kinds of power — whether one agrees that women enjoy an advantage in them or not — are not seen as mattering as much as structural power, and so attention is primarily paid to structural power and balancing that out.
I would argue that this perspective arises from a particularly modern perspective that heavily emphasizes and prioritizes the individual as a matter of societal, civilizational, political and economic priority. If you are prioritizing individual initiative, accomplishment, achievement, and so on, as a socio-political-economic-civilizational priority, I think this leads to an emphasis on structural power, because structural power is the locus of individual action and attainment in the public sense in all of those areas. That is, an individualist-emphasizing civilization will tend to place a higher value on the kinds of things allocated to the male sphere under the old system, because that is the public expression of individual attainment and so on. By comparison, activity which can be seen as less individual and more communal (such as intra-familial activity) is de-prioritized and devalued, in relative terms. Of course, a balance can be reached here between individual and communal, but when it goes too far in the direction of individual prioritization, it seems to me that it is only a matter of time until the call comes for equalization of access to that kind of individual expression for everyone, on the grounds of fairness — and that call will find many ears, if people generally believe that individual expression is the most critical thing on the menu (as, say, most Americans do). But a key point is that the prioritization of the sphere of individual attainment over the sphere of communal/social comes before this, and leads directly to it.
Therefore, from my perspective, what is needed here is not LASIK surgery for a relatively small adjustment, but rather a larger scalpel for more significant revision. In particular, the societal emphasis on the individual needs to be repealed if there is any hope of repealing the underpinning which gave rise to the idea that structural power needed to be equalized in the first place — which means a re-emphasis on the social and communal/familial aspects, and a relative de-emphasis on the individual attainment ones. A de-emphasis, however, not a destruction of them; balance is needed, not a radical shift towards the other pole, in terms of the individual/communal axis. This is a hard sell, however, because individual attainment is attractive to people, even if it is bad when writ large (as a matter of societal/civilizational emphasis) — kind of like ice cream or pizza.
Hoellenhund2 and Novaseeker said things better than I could. Great comments.
Incredibly good post Donal. Out of the park.
My only comment: historically (say 99% of human evolution) men have had limited investment in their personal children except by hunting and war. The genius of Patriarchy was to pull men into the family sphere, lock in paternity, and bribe men to invest in children. This pays if it can be pulled off. But since the domestic has all the power on the mother’s side, men must be protected by rule of law for this system to work for long (men must be in charge of marriages, own the property and children, etc.). But all our evolutionary instincts are tribal and most of us (men and women both) fight against this system when possible (i.e., the Patriarchy delivers wealth and success, we use that surplus to revert back to our roots, society collapses, and start over again). We are in the latter phase now.
@ Ras and Nova
Thanks for the great comments. I will try and respond in full later, but thank you for expanding on, and in some cases clarifying, what I’ve said.
What makes MRAs so appealing to some of the manospherian men is because they (correctly) point out the hypocrisy of feminism, which admittedly isn’t really hard to do.
It took me a moment to realize this, but MRAs are very, extremely liberal. They are actually far left.
MRAs actually don’t believe patriarchy existed, which they are correct. In America, patriarchy never existed. But what MRAs try to fight is the disposable male and if patriarchy actually ever did exist, it was more oppressive to men than women.
That is essentially the MRAs fighting tactic. It is the same as feminists: “Let us chant who is more oppressed.”
This is not an inherently masculine way of fighting against the enemy. This is feminine. The MRAs have adopted a feminine tactic of fighting against feminism, which is probably why it is getting very popular with women.
You’ll notice that MRAs tend to not be very popular with women romantically, which is why they hate PUAs and those who encourage game, saying that is oppressive to men also. MRAs hate masculinity. They may say they try to defend it, but they hate things inherently masculine. Feminism may punish masculine behavior, but men who still behave masculine regardless gain female attention (feminists included).
For example, MRAs say that men have no choice in terms of whether or not they would like to have a baby. How is it that women can have a choice and men cannot? While there is some truth, they go wrong with the solution.
Instead of proposing that abortion should be illegal because it is unfair to both men and women, they are saying men should have the choice of a woman’s abortion.
This would cause more chaos. Can you imagine?
Another example, is that there are plenty of MRA activists who are stay at home dads. They believe that the role of a man who has to provide for and protect his family is oppressive since this encourages “male disposibility.”
And Egalitarianism will always go wrong because they see equality as an ends. They are short sighted and ignore biological makeup. Equal opportunity doesn’t mean equal outcome.
Unless it is appointed by God, women abuse power. We see this all the time.
re: 2:28 PM
The loony left is obsessed with power, full stop. To them everything is about power. It’s the only thing that matters. They’re obsessed with gaining it, retaining it, using it. They are pretty much mentally ill.
re: 5:24 PM
Let’s cut the crap. Do you actually know what “masculinity” is? I’ll tell you what it is. A bullshit word, nothing more. It almost perfectly fits the dictionary definition of bullshit, namely “nonsense intended to deceive”. Or to be more precise: nonsense intended to manipulate.
There are plenty of people who discuss masculinity all the time – what it is, what it should be, what its role should be, why it’s important etc. They tend to fall into two categories: romantically unsuccessful women, and the white knight supporters of the Man Up Campaign. What does that tell you?
Nobody actually bothers to come up with a clear-cut definition of masculinity. You know why? Because there isn’t any. Masculinity is whatever people want it to be – people who want to manipulate men, especially young single men, for resources. Women and white knights claim the moral right to define what masculinity is and is not – in other words, to tell men what to do and what not to do. Can you tell me any reason why men should listen to them?
Masculinity is a topic that won’t go away. The “right” people think it’s self-evident that young men should always be lectured how to behave in “proper” ways. On the other hand, when was the last time you heard about a femininity crisis? When was the last time anyone in the mainstream media proposed that women should learn how to become good wives and mothers?
I’ve asked enough questions, so I guess it’s time to answer yours:
“This would cause more chaos. Can you imagine?”
Yes, I can imagine. And I’m for it. Do you want to prevent trashy, impulsive single mothers and their thugspawn from starving to death in their unheated homes? I surely don’t.
@ hoellenhund
This is such obviously rubbish I’m surprised you could write it. Of course there is a real concept of masculinity. There has been one for millennia. Just because various groups have sought to twist its meaning to their purposes doesn’t change the fact that masculinity exists.
@ mdavid
Exactly. There is probably a cyclical nature to all of this. “Nothing new under the sun” and all that. Civilization exists only when we have an organized system to suppress the worst of our base instincts. Sadly, the success of civilization also creates an environment where the perceived need to keep these restraints in place no longer exists. Only those with foresight and an understanding of history can spot this folly when it rears its ugly head.
@ Ras
My blog integrates biological and social “power” into the curve of the graph. That power lies at the heart of the Feminine Imperative. Also, I think potential might be a better word for that, because it don’t necessarily translate directly into power.
Looking back at what I wrote, I can see that we have two different models for how the process works. Both are accurate, both show it from a different perspective. I was showing structural power because it is something that we can change, shape and alter. Biological power is pretty much locked in.
@ NSR
Using FU instead of FI is crass, but not entirely inappropriate to the circumstances. But you do raise a good point- what name do we give a situation where the FI is allowed to run rampant? Might be worth another post.
@ Novaseeker
I agree with pretty much everything you’ve said. We face a lot of hurdles here, and a lot of what makes the West the West creates the present conundrum. Re-emphasizing the community and the family will be critical to any effort to either restore civilization or keep some fragment of it alive once we reach the breaking point.
I particularly like the LASIK versus scalpel analogy- it makes it clear that a radical repair job is required here. Simple fixes won’t do the trick any more.
“Of course there is a real concept of masculinity. There has been one for millennia.”
And that is…what?
“Just because various groups have sought to twist its meaning to their purposes doesn’t change the fact that masculinity exists.”
Guess what: these groups have been doing this since the beginning of time. And they are the only people pushing the concept of masculinity.
I was expecting that there would be some strong disagreement
I did in fact disagree quite strongly with the dismissive tone you offered toward women who are shaken aware by seeing the plights of men they love.
Given the sheer numbers of women who jettison husbands, leave their sons fatherless or sit by silently rather than fighting when their daughters-in-law frivorce their sons and isolate them from their grandchildren, I would think that a woman moved by the plight of a man should be recognized as a good thing.
There are very few people (women OR men) who are moved solely by an inherent sense of compassion for others. The current cultural dynamic (selfish, callous indifference) is the direct result of the breakdown of family and community ties. The love of many has waxed cold, to quote Our Messiah.
Most individuals who do something that benefits others are initially moved by having their hearts tugged on by a situation they have witnessed that touched them deeply.
Lovely, For example, MRAs say that men have no choice in terms of whether or not they would like to have a baby. How is it that women can have a choice and men cannot? While there is some truth…
Taking the law as it stands, that woman’s right to abort is constitutional based upon her human rights, I can’t see why the MRA legal position isn’t 100% sound here. Men are being discriminated against in family formation law.
…Instead of proposing that abortion should be illegal because it is unfair to both men and women, they are saying men should have the choice of a woman’s abortion.This would cause more chaos. Can you imagine?
I think most men are saying they should have the right to deny the responsibilities of fatherhood if they choose. I full agree with this legal position. A woman who gets knocked up even inside marriage has the right to abort at any time without notifying the father. That’s law. Why should men not deserve the same right to deny the responsibilities of fatherhood before the birth? Why is this “chaos”? It’s more like the traditional system, with marriage being the deciding factor. If a woman got knocked up outside marriage she was on her own. Inside marriage, the male was in charge. And that’s how it should still be. If find your position a lot like marriage 2.0.
Another example, is that there are plenty of MRA activists who are stay at home dads. They believe that the role of a man who has to provide for and protect his family is oppressive since this encourages “male disposibility.”
Under marriage 2.0, I fully agree. Men have all the responsibilities and no rights. Men are disposable. From a Christian POV, they get no Justice. And so, wonder of wonders, men are now refusing to play (i.e. have children). I’m not sure what an MRA is, but as a traditional parent and Christian I’m in agreement with every trait you’ve attributed to them.
@ Elspeth
Elspeth, I had trouble at first understanding why you thought I was being dismissive of women who were moved by the plight of men. My post was certainly cynical, I wouldn’t disagree with that. But being dismissive was not part of my goal. But as I was re-reading my post, I saw this sentence in the second bullet-point:
I can see where that sentence would give that impression. My apologies, I made a typo there and it changed the intent of that sentence, in context, fairly significantly. That sentence should have begun with “Or”, not with “Perhaps.”
The idea being that women were doing this because it benefited them or those close to them. Or because they were moved by the plight of men in their lives.
Sorry for that.
Although I should add that I think most women are not so motivated who are part of the WAF movement. From what I can tell, this is mostly about status signaling; primarily among other women but perhaps also to more desirable men as well. I’d love to be wrong about this, but I don’t think I am.
It was also the part about being moved by a father’s of brother’s or some other loved one’s plight as “not altruistic”:
The WAF are not taking their stand, for the most part, for altruistic reasons. One way or another they see this as beneficial to them, or to those close to them. Perhaps they have seen a father, brother, boyfriend/husband who has suffered because of the more virulent strains of feminism, and it has turned them against that strain.
Altruism is identified as an unselfish concern for the well-being of others. Because the person is important to you doesn’t make it less than altruistic.
I agree with your overall premise that this is mostly herd/status stuff. But there is something to be said for those like Judgy Bitch, who saw what her father went through and was moved to speak out, publicly and under her own name I might add.
It seems counter intuitive to me to belittle women who are moved by the plight of the men they care about, because these are the things that move women in ways both good and bad.Like it or not, none of the change that we want to see can ever happen apart from the participation of a significant part of women, and a change in the behavior on the part of women. If it takes being outraged on behalf of dad or uncle or even husband/boyfriend, so be it.
And speaking from experience, there are men whose plights have influenced me where I have nothing personal to gain from a change to the status quo that would bring them justice.
Elspeth, I did include “for the most part” in that first sentence. And for a reason- to make it clear that, yes, Not All Women Are Like That.
Perhaps I should edit that post to clear up that section?
Ha! I wasn’t trying to say NAWALT. I don’t even believe in NAWALT. I think the fact that some women are moved by their emotions on behalf of men they love is in truth just another manifestation of AWALT.
If I hadn’t from childhood seen my grandmother repeatedly physically assault my grandfather I have no doubt I’d be just another fool screeching, “There’s no reason for a man to EVER hit a woman!”
I was just nit picking your definition of altruism.
I think the fact that some women are moved by their emotions on behalf of men they love is in truth just another manifestation of AWALT.
But a good manifestation, I should add. There are virtuous expressions of the feminine nature as well as there are vile expressions.
Thanks for the dialog.
Interesting, because my understanding/definition is pretty much the same as what you gave in your previous comment: “an unselfish concern for the well-being of others.”
From a genetic perspective, caring about what happens to one’s kin by blood is not altruistic — it benefits the same gene line. That’s where the line is drawn.
[DG: Good point.]
So caring about what happens to one’s kin by blood is less than altruistic even when there is no tangible benefit to the one who cares? That actually makes sense to me so I’ll defer to your greater knowledge Nova.
I still think that in this particular culture, where women treat their blood men and the father of their children like yesterday’s trash, the woman who cares about the men in her midst (and even more than that, translates that concern into a concern for justice in the greater arena) is something noteworthy, regardless of how she got there.
Lets not forget that the culture encourages this too. It reminds me of something that Dalrock said to those men who reject the notion that women can love sacrificially (I’m paraphrasing here):
“Why is it if that women cannot love sacrificially, the culture does its best to make sure that women don’t love sacrificially?”
There is a lot to be said that despite the poison pumped into our minds by the culture, there are still women who love the men in their lives. And that despite the poor treatment of men by the culture and by man women, there are still men who love the women in their lives.
@mdavid: I’m not talking about assuming responsibility over an unwanted child where the mother didn’t ask for the father’s consent. I’m talking about abortion, terminating the baby.
Some MRAs have proposed that there should be an option for men if they want to abort the baby. This would be chaos.
I agree that men should have a choice outside of wedlock if they want a child or not, but it should be done through resources and not abortion. This would decrease promiscuity among women. The reason I will not support inside of wedlock is because a man and a woman can agree beforehand if they are going to permit abortion, even though I believe the act itself should be illegal completely.
I’m not against women working or staying at home, but a man is called to provide for his family. Since you are a Christian, I’m sure you know 1 Timothy 5:8.
Feminists abuse this by taking the resources a man would have for his family and spreading it to all women. MRAs would say 1 Timothy 5:8 is just downright oppressive and most are atheist so, they would have no problem saying this.
@hollendhund2: I’m not trying to define masculinity. That is not my place and I don’t have to know it in order for it to exist.
Also, hollenhund2, if masculinity doesn’t exist then neither does femininity since they are complementary of each other. Masculinity and femininity are the characteristics of male and female. God created man and woman.
*characteristics (can you correct this please, Donalgraeme)
[DG: Fixed both typos.]
So caring about what happens to one’s kin by blood is less than altruistic even when there is no tangible benefit to the one who cares? That actually makes sense to me so I’ll defer to your greater knowledge Nova.
I still think that in this particular culture, where women treat their blood men and the father of their children like yesterday’s trash, the woman who cares about the men in her midst (and even more than that, translates that concern into a concern for justice in the greater arena) is something noteworthy, regardless of how she got there.
It’s good that they do so, but I don’t think “altruistic” is the word for it.
Lovley, @mdavid: I’m not talking about assuming responsibility over an unwanted child where the mother didn’t ask for the father’s consent. I’m talking about abortion, terminating the baby.
I get you now. I certainly agree that forcing a woman to abort her child would be a violation of her rights (even if one didn’t think the baby had one).
I’m not against women working or staying at home, but a man is called to provide for his family. Since you are a Christian, I’m sure you know 1 Timothy 5:8.
Let’s not conflate Christian teaching with rule of law in a mainly pagan nation. I’m taking about simple justice for people of any faith, so my or your personal interpretation of Timothy 5:8 is irrelevant to my point. Which is: if men are actively being discriminated against. Therefore, anyone concerned with justice would follow the MRA position here.
MRAs would say 1 Timothy 5:8 is just downright oppressive and most are atheist so, they would have no problem saying this.
I don’t see a problem with this. For example, I believe that birth control and divorce is wrong due to my religious beliefs, but accept that most of my fellow self-described Christians, let alone fellow citizens, don’t. Is it fair for me to demand a law be passed to back my view of things on people outside of my culture? I don’t think so. But what is not fair at all is to discriminate against one group of people (men in this case) because I just wish I lived in a Theocracy. In our current legal structure, men and women are supposed to be equal under the law. MRA don’t sound like they want anything else but to be treated fairly under this regime, and in my book anyone who disagrees with this concept lacks the virtue of justice.
Sidenote: I think the blasé attitude of women (under the spell of FI natch) towards these injustices against men will lead to some very ugly times as families collapse. To paraphrase Keynes: Justice, I fear, will not limp. Men and women get the opposite sex they deserve, and I doubt most women fully grasp what the future will look like for them.
I am still a bit confused by the second graph. I think Patriarchy is the “good” toward which we are to strive. You don’t balance it with anything else. “Matriarchy” is always a weakened, debilitated thing, although it does exist. You don’t balance these two.
Now “masculine” and “feminine” both exist and in some sense they have to cooperate (complementarity more than equality). But here again, balance does not make sense. Balance is a quantitative metaphor. It is really static.
Feminists make the incredibly nutty claim that, as you say, women should dominate. They don’t even say that mothers should dominate (matriarchy). This explains their penchant for abortion.
Now, I would agree that feminism, with its equality talk, always is aiming at this power grab. This is because equality between the sexes is an unintelligible concept, and they are using this “clear but false” idea for purposes of destabilization of everything.
Well, I don’t think patriarchy and feminism can be shown on the same graph. They are not poles.
Also, does “excessive” Patriarchy destabilize society, as seems to be implied from your graph? Well, excessive *masculine* influence that works to destroy the feminine could be a problem, but hardly over a long term.Just like feminism can’t work over the long term. But how could one have too much of fathers? If you have fathers, you’ve got mothers in the trade! They’ll always be there. No need for a trumped-up matriarchy. Sin and error can ruin fathers, but not Patriarchy per se. Here again, that relation between Patriarchy and the Good. Just like in the Holy Trinity, for the theologically minded.
@mdavid: Sorry, maybe I’m not making myself clear. I’m not saying 1 Timothy 5:8 should be lawfully enforced, no way! But it is not inherently oppressive. For example, wives cannot be forced to submit to their husbands by law, but a wife submitting to her husband is not inherently oppressive.
Feminists say the concept of submitting is oppressive, like MRAs say the concept of the patriarch is oppressive.
Lovely, that’s a good analogy, I think I’m getting your views.
Btw, Ciaran over at GFG has a good post that’s starting to convert me over on this issue. He said:
There are those in the manosphere who will have no sympathy for these young women, because their feminine imperative inspired rejections of feminism are so obviously self serving. I disagree…A bit of female solipsism is entirely forgivable in the service of that cause.
In a sense, I’m an example how the negative effects of feminism will linger for generations. And I have no personal “loss” due to feminism, while so many others, men and women, have. Very sad for everyone.
@ Lovely:
“That is essentially the MRAs fighting tactic. It is the same as feminists: “Let us chant who is more oppressed.””
My take on MRA and the MHRM in its current iteration is that it has adopted the Alinskyesque tactics of their enemies. MRAs and those in the MHRM have simply said “we’ll try to beat them at their own game. Black knighting. Make them live up to their own rules.” If men will be accused of sex harassment at the drop of a hat and show hair-trigger sensitivity to all things sexiss, then we men will too. We will call out women on absolutely everything they do that seeks preferential treatment based on sex. We will call out women on any form of male objectification.
If they are for full gender equity, fine. Make THEM get out and change the flat tire. Make THEM earn their own money. In marriages, we will have an exactly down the middle division of all labor: We will each earn 50% of the money and do 50% of the parenting and 50% of the chores. Everything will be exactly equal.
They’re doing it in part to demonstrate it cannot be done and it’s an impossibility – exactly the point of Alinsky’s diatribes. Force the system to live up to its own ideals and rules, and it will collapse of its own lumbering weight. I think that’s part of the mentality and goals of the MRA/MHRM currently.
They are also trying to use the “Pick the target, freeze it and polarize it” and the “ridicule your opponents” tactics. MRA/MHRM put the worst offenders out there and hang them like albatrosses around all feminists: Big Red. Amanda Marcotte. Lindy West. The loudest mouths and the most obnoxious personalities are held up as representatives of the movement.
This is interesting. Prior to reading this post, I’ve never even heard of any of the groups listed here, except for MRA. So I could be wrong about this, but if these women see what feminism is doing to the men they love, and they are fighting on their behaf, then aren’t they fighting for all men by extention? And doesn’t this mean they are fighting against the feminist herd, meaning these women will be shunned by the herd? If our inclination is typically to fit in with the herd, then how is this not being altruistic?
What you fail to factor in is the impact of the industrial revolution on our culture.20,000 years of human development formed our sexual roles. The industrial revolution has thoroughly disrupted this development. Our human culture has struggled for the last 200 years to catch up. We are just starting to realign our cultural roles to the new physical reality. What they are we don’t know. But just as the agrarian gave way to the modern age the family structure built around that must give way to a new one…
KS, 20,000 years of human development formed our sexual roles.
Humans left Africa about 50,000 ya and we were wearing clothing by that time (women sewing) and men were hunting and fishing with good tools. Since Native Americans left Europe around 20,000 ya and they have about the same sexual mores as moderns…I would say it’s a good guess our sexual roles are 50,000 years old at least. I’m not sure agriculture (say 10-20,000 ya) changed us that much in our sexual more or roles, or the French trappers would not have found the squaws so inviting upon arrival. In the end, modern humans seem to be tribal in our core sexually…just check out high school for an example of returning to our roots sexually…
@mdavid: Sorry, but I do not know what GFG is. Cirian made a good point though.
I think more people are affected by this than most of us would like to think, even if it is indirectly.
@Deti: At first, I thought MRAs were essentially just black knighting, but the only way for black knighting to work is for it to benefit the men who are black knighting in return. But egalitarian marriages don’t benefit men or women in return.
The more housework the husband does or the more “egalitarian” a marriage is, less sex is happening between the married couple. This is why masculinity and femininity is so important because the polarities spark attraction.
What MRAs and feminists dare doing is self defeating.
@ Fish Man
I left it unclear in the graph for several reasons, but the balance point is indeed Patriarchy. You seem to misunderstand the way that I referenced balance in that graph. Its not about balancing patriarchy against something else, it is about finding the most stable organization of society for the purpose of advancing civilization. Again, its not about balancing male and female power, but about finding the point where everything is stable- the balance point. That point is where there is sufficient male power to counter-act female “soft power” and the influence of the Feminine Imperative, yet no so much male power that women *truly* suffer (not like feminists talk about).
When I referenced feminism in that graph, it was to show the kind of power distribution that feminists of the radical variety want. I wasn’t equating it with matriarchy.
Not excess Patriarchy, but excess male power. Think Pater Familias under Rome. Its not about having too many fathers, but about men being able to assert too much power over women without being checked. In a healthy society this is all about men restricting what other men can do- not women telling men what they can do.
@ FBNF
Potentially. Of course, that assumes they are really fighting, and not using this purely to status-symbol. But otherwise helping the men they care about almost certainly necessitates helping men in general. Which is, overall, I think clearly a good thing.
The WAF will be shunned by the feminist herd, but the question is, how big is the feminist herd compared to the WAF herd? Which is larger, and which is more influential? This seems to be to be a struggle between women over men at its base. And for women that is something worth fighting for.
Those are two different things. Just because you are bucking the herd doesn’t make you altruistic. It can be entirely self-serving.
Pingback: The Different Strains Of Feminism | Donal Graeme
Donal,
I am not really a fan of the idea of balance except under the most mundane circumstances. Balance is rather two-dimensional and lacks a sense of hierarchical order. I don’t think that the most important aspects of being “balance” any more than they could ever be called “equal.” Of course, balance and equality are strictly related. Add the fact that “balance” can only include two elements and you have a very limited concept–a metaphor, actually–on your hands. Someone once called this being “unbalanced about balance.” “Fullness” and “wholeness” seem to me the most important concepts, and may have that “vertical” or hierarchical dimension. In terms of the sexes, I think, of course, of fullness and wholeness being the “complementarian” reality AND the hierarchical nature of things with men in the leadership/headship/authority/patriarchy role.
Pingback: Women Have No Power | Free Northerner
Pingback: The Varieties of Power
Pingback: Power To The People | Donal Graeme